Evaluation of the Kindergartner Inclusion Program Cheng Lie Yueh Lee National Taipei University of Education Abstract This study presented the evaluation of kindergartner inclusive education program at Taipei County School District in Taiwan. Fifty-two primary level (age 3-4) students and 83 intermediate level (age 5-6) students with disabilities in kindergartner were evaluated using individualized and teacher report measures. The results showed significant improvements in cognitive competence for both students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Physical competence and peer acceptance among students with disabilities showed more positive over the school year. At peer acceptance, the intermediate students with disabilities showed more positive acceptance on the posttest than their peers without disabilities. No significant difference on the maternal acceptance in both student with disabilities and student without disabilities. Key words: evaluation, kindergartner, inclusion, competence, BACKGROUND Special Education Law in Taiwan requires that children with disability be placed in the least restrictive environment. Despite the trend toward placement in inclusive settings, the least restrictive environment for some 3 to 5 year olds with greater complex needs still placement in a segregated preschool special education class by the public school system. Special education professionals stated that the early years children should be placed in the inclusive education because it can provide the valuable academic and social learning opportunities for all children (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). It also allow children with disabilities and other children who struggle but do not qualify for special education, to succeed in general education classrooms when supportive teachers, peers, administrators, specialists, teacher aids, and others working together (O’Shea & O’Shea, 1997). Sapon-Shevin (1996) indicated that children in inclusive classrooms learn important social lessons that help them become compassionate adults. Meanwhile, children without disabilities benefit from the additional human and material resources that the inclusive classrooms can provide (Walther-Thomas, 1997). In addition, educators also gain from their work in inclusive settings. According to teachers report, they received unprecedented professional growth and personal support as they engage in collaboration with colleagues (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996). The kindergarten inclusive program in Taipei County School District had developed for over six years, however there was not any evaluation for these benefit assumptions of inclusion. The purpose of this study was to examine and evaluate how special education services were provided in the12 elementary schools’ kindergarten inclusive programs. The hypotheses of this study were investigated: (1) Cognitive competence of students with disabilities will improve after one year of inclusion; (2) Physical competence and maternal acceptance among students with disabilities will be more positive over the school year; (3) primary–level (age 3-4) students with disabilities will be chosen more often as desirable playmates by all students, and (4) intermediate-level (age 5-6) students with disabilities will be viewed more positively by peers. METHODS Participants The participants of this study included 135 students with disabilities and 540 students without disabilities in kindergarten. The special education sample included students with intelligent disabilities, autism, emotional disturbance, physical disabilities, hearing impairments and multiple disabilities. At the primary level (age 3-4), the sample consisted of 52 students with disabilities and 208 students without disabilities. At the intermediate level (age 5-6), the sample consisted of 83 students with disabilities and 332 students without disabilities. The students’ cognitive abilities ranged from moderate to mild intelligent disabilities. (see Table 1). Table 1 Types of students with disabilities at the 12 kindergartens N=135 　　 Kindergarten Total 　　 primary level intermediate level 　　　　　　　　　　　　(age 3-4) (age 5-6) Disability n % n % n % Intelligent disabilities 18 13.33 28 20.74 46 34.07 Autism 9 6.67 15 11.11 24 17.78 Emotional disturbance 6 4.44 9 6.67 15 11.11 Physical disabilities 4 2.96 6 4.44 10 7.41 Hearing impairments 4 2.96 10 7.41 14 10.37 Multiple disabilities 11 8.15 15 11.11 26 19.26 Total 52 38.52 83 61.48 135 100.00 Setting Students with disabilities attended inclusive classrooms on a full time basis, with class enrollment ranging from 25 to 30 students. Each inclusive classroom contained from 1 to 3 students with disabilities. Special education support, such as modifications, accommodations, substitutions reflected students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Inclusive classroom consisted of two general education teachers and one part-time teacher aide. The itinerant teacher travels from school to school and works directly with students with disabilities in each school. One itinerant teacher average services for 25 students. Measures The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (Form P –K) (Harter, & Pike, 1984) was used in this study. Pre and posttest were completed in September and April. Teachers were assisted by interpreters when testing students with disabilities. This Pictorial Scale includes four subscales: cognitive competence, physical competence, peer acceptance and maternal acceptance. Two illustrations were presented for each item-- typically, one illustration showing a child who is very good at the task(s) and another illustration showing a child who is not very good at the task(s). The teacher read two brief statements for the student with disabilities, one positive and one negative, for each of the pictures. The student was then asked to choose which of the children from the two statements is most like him or her-- the student depicting the positive statement or depicting the negative statement. After the respondent identifies with one of the children, the teacher asked the student how much he or she resembled the child, whether by a little or by a lot. This test required about 15-20 minutes for each student. Higher scores reflect a greater sense of competence or social acceptance. Data Analyses Data from student and teacher report measures were analyzed using separate two-way (pre-and posttest, students with disabilities and students without disabilities) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with one repeated measure (pretest and posttest) for primary level (age 3-4) and intermediate level (age 5-6) students. RESULTS 1. Student report measure at the primary level (age 3-4) On the Pictorial Scale, a significant interaction effect resulted at the Cognitive Competence subscale, F(1, 258) = 4.31, p =.034. Students with disabilities started the year with lower perceptions of their cognitive competence (M=2.92, SD=0.53) than did students without disabilities (M=3.52, SD=0.36), but their perceptions increased in extremely over the year(M=3.27, SD=0.71). The scores of students without disabilities were also higher at post testing (M=3.78, SD=0.32). At the Physical Competence subscale, the students with disabilities showed higher progress between pre test (M=3.24, SD=0.33) and post test (M= 3.73, SD=0.71), F (1,258) = 3.92, p=.025. No significant difference on the Peer Acceptance and Maternal Acceptance subscales (see Table 2). 2. Student report measure at the intermediate level (age 5-6) In the intermediate level, a significant group main effect resulted on the Cognitive Competence subscale. Comparing of the pre and post test, the scores showed significant increases for the students with disabilities, F (1, 413) =3.93, p = 0.03. At the Physical Competence subscale, students with disabilities showed significant higher scores than those of their peers without disabilities, F(1, 413) = 4.71, p = 0.05. At the Peer Acceptance subscale, students with disabilities showed more positive acceptance on the posttest (M=3.55, SD= 0.67) than their peers without disabilities (M=3.44, SD= 0.54). No significant difference on the Maternal Acceptance subscales in both students with disabilities and students without disabilities (see Table 3). Table 2. Descriptive Statistics at the Primary Level (age 3-4) Students Students with without disabilities a disabilities b Measures and time M SD M SD Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence 　Cognitive Competence Scale Pretest 2.92 0.53 3.52 0.36 Protest 3.27 0.71 3.78 0.32 　Physical Competence Scale 　　　Pretest 3.24 0.33 3.59 0.41 Protest 3.79 0.71 3.78 0.25 　Peer Acceptance Scale 　　　Pretest 3.22 0.54 3.78 0.43 Protest 3.21 0.49 3.82 0.70 Maternal Acceptance Scale 　　　Pretest 2.89 0.75 3.19 0.54 Protest 2.96 0.74 3.34 0.45 a n=52, b n=208 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics at the intermediate level (age 5-6) Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence Students Students with without disabilities a disabilities b Measures and time M SD M SD Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence 　Cognitive Competence Scale Pretest 2.85 0.57 3.24 0.39 Protest 3.48 0.61 3.86 0.67 　Physical Competence Scale 　　　Pretest 3.31 0.77 3.54 0.33 Protest 3.69 0.68 3.63 0.45 　Peer Acceptance Scale 　　　Pretest 3.15 0.54 3.45 0.50 Protest 3.55 0.67 3.44 0.54 Maternal Acceptance Scale 　　　Pretest 2.95 0.81 3.25 0.61 Protest 3.10 0.76 3.33 0.53 a n=83, b n=332 CONCLUSION According to this study, there were some positive findings. On the cognitive competence, both of students with disabilities and without disabilities felt good about their cognitive competence performance in the inclusive classrooms. Both groups of primary and intermediate students with disabilities was rated by their teachers to attain a higher cognitive competence at posttest. At the physical competence, students with disabilities showed significant higher scores than those of their peers without disabilities. At peer acceptance, the intermediate students with disabilities showed more positive acceptance on the posttest than their peers without disabilities. This study also found no significant difference on the maternal acceptance in both student with disabilities and student without disabilities. REFERENCES Bauwens, J. & Hourcade, J.(1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse, Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scales of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development, 55, 1969-1982. Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (Eds.)(1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming American classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes. O’Shea, D.J., & O’Shea, L. J.(1997). Collaboration and school reform: A twenty-first century perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 30, 449-462. Sapon-Shevin, M.(1996). Including all students and their gifts within regular classrooms. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds). Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed. pp l69-80). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Walther-Thomas, C. S., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-265. Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Inclusion and teaming: including all students in the mainstream. In T. S. Dickinson & T. O. Erb (Eds.). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp.487-521). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.. 1